Date of Filing: 05.04.2017 Date of Final Order: 16.08.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, President in-charge.
On proper study of the complaint was filed by Sri Bijoy Ch. Das U/S 12 of C.P. Act against Pan Card Clubs Ltd., it reveals that the Complainant deposited Rs.3,600/- to Pan Card Clubs Limited in Delight Holiday Scheme against Folio No.COO-82224. The O.P. issued a receipt No.COO-084771 on 31/03/2010 for 6 years 3 months. The Complainant further deposited Rs.5,400 /- in Relax Holiday Scheme against Folio No. 1004-01-45840 on 31,03 2012 for 3yrs. 3 months also Rs. 10,800/- 0n 13.05.2013 in Relax Holiday Scheme against Folio No. 1004-01-61847 for 3yrs. 3 months. After maturity of the said schemes the O.P. issued a cheque bearing No. 54005 for Rs. 8,188/- dated 01.06.2016 in favour of the Complainant but the said cheque has taken back by the O.P. on 04.02.2016, the reason best known to them. The Complainant knocked the door of the O.P. Company on several occasion with a desire to get back he matured amount but all efforts were in vain. Ultimately, being frustrated the Complainant lodged a case before this Forum seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the present case, despite receiving the notice the O.Ps did not turn up to contest the case for which this case proceeded with ex-parte against the O.Ps.
In the light of the facts as elaborated in the complaint and the documents made available in the record the following points came up for consideration to reach in final conclusion.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully along with Evidence on Affidavit filed by the Complainant also perused the entire materials on record and heard the Ex-parte argument.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased three policies bearing Folio No. COO-82224 on 31/03/2010, Folio No. 1004-01-45840 on 31.03.2012 and Folio No. 1004-01-61847 on 13.05.2013 from the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No. 1 being a branch office of the O.P. N. 2 received the policy amount from the Complainant. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps, so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the present Complainant is a consumer as per C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2.
The O.P. No. 1 is the branch office of the O.P. No. 2 that is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount of the Complainant is far less than the prescribed limit as such this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up for the convenience of discussion as well as related with each other.
Undisputedly, the Complainant obtained certificates/Receipts bearing Folio No. COO-82224 on 31/03/2010, Folio No. 1004-01-45840 on 31.03.2012 and Folio No. 1004-01-61847 on 13.05.2013 from the O.P. No.1 and the dates of maturity of the said policies ware on 30.06.2016,30.06.2016, and 13.08.2016 respectively.
The point of the dispute is that the O.P Company failed to give the insured value to the Complainant even after elapsing so many months of the maturity dates.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant purchased three policies launched by the O.P. Company. The option of the said policy selected by the Complainant Delight Holiday and purchased 4 Room Nights for availing service with rate of Rs.900/- per room. The Complainant deposited Rs.3,600/- for purchasing the said policy with additional charge of Rs.100/-. The Folio bearing No.COO-82224 clearly goes to show that purchased value of per room night was Rs. 900/- only and surrender value was Rs.1,800/- per room night i.e. Rs.7,200/- at the time of surrender the policy. It is crystal clear that the Complainant invested Rs.3,600/- to the O.P Company for the period of 6 years 3 months i.e. 75 months and entitled to get the surrender value of Rs.7,200/-.
The Complainant again deposited Rs.5,400/- on 31.03.2012 in Relax Holiday and purchased 6 Room Nights for availing service with rate of Rs.900/- per room. The Complainant deposited Rs.5,400/- for purchasing the said policy with additional charge of Rs.100/-. The Folio bearing No.1004-01-45840 clearly goes to show that the purchased value of per room night was Rs. 900/- but we do not find any document to show the surrender value of the said purchase.
Further, the Complainant purchased one policy launched by the O.P. Company on 13.05.2013 The option of the said policy selected by the Complainant Relax Holiday and purchased 12 Room Nights for availing service with rate of Rs.900/- per room. The Complainant deposited Rs.10,800/- for purchasing the said policy with additional charge of Rs.120/-. The Folio bearing No.1004-01-61847 clearly goes to show that purchased value of per room night was Rs. 900/- only and surrender value was Rs.1,260/- per room night i.e. Rs.15,120/- at the time of surrender the policy. It is crystal clear that the Complainant invested Rs10,800/- to the O.P Company for the period of 3 years 3 months i.e. 39 months and entitled to get the surrender value of Rs.15,120/-.
In this case the O.Ps did not come forward before this Forum to contest the case despite receiving the notice. Thus, the documents as corroborated the fact of the complaint remain unchallenged.
In this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that as and when the O.Ps received the amount for the policy and issued certificates with an assurance to return more amount as surrender value after maturity, the service is well established. The O.Ps failed to return back the maturity amount/surrender value even after surrender the policy certificate at the ending of the policy period. The O.Ps also took no initiative despite several requests of the Complainant. Thus, deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.Ps.
It is also pertinent to mention here that any financial institution like the O.P Company cannot enjoy the public money without giving any service. This type of Money Marketing Agencies are running their business by adopting unfair trade practice and deprived the common people by lucrative advertisements for which the O.Ps should be penalised.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and the documents made available in the record it is established that there is clear deficiency in service from the side of the O.Ps by not settling the claim of the Complainant also they have adopted unfair trade practice. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as sought for. All the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
The complaint succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the present case be and the same is allowed in exparte against the O.P. No.1 & 2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to return the surrender value of Rs.31,608/- in connection with the three policies to the Complainant with 8% interest p.a. from the date of the maturity of the policies.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental pain & agonies of the Complainant. The O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Legal Aid Account for adopting unfair trade practice. The entire order must be complied by the O.Ps jointly and/or severally within 30 days i/d the interest @ 8% P.A. shall be levied upon the unpaid amount till its full realization.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
